The QATSDD critical appraisal tool: Comments and critiques

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1125-1128

  Fenton, Lara ^a   Lauckner, Heidi ^a   Gilbert, Robert ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

integrative reviews; qualitative and quantitative methodology; synthesis; systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CRITICAL APPRAISAL; DECISION MAKING; LANGUAGE; METHODOLOGY; PARAMETERS; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QATSDD TOOL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; SCORING SYSTEM; STUDY DESIGN; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PUBLICATION; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84959326031     PISSN: 13561294     EISSN: 13652753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jep.12487     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., et al. (2010) CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63 (8), e1-e37.
2. Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., &, Craig, J., (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care: Journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care/ISQua, 19 (6), 349-357.
3. Sirriyeh, R., Lawton, R., Gardner, P., &, Armitage, G., (2012) Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18, 746-752.
4. Pluye, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., &, Johnson-Lafleur, J., (2009) A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46 (4), 529-546.
5. Whittemore, R., &, Knafl, K., (2005) The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 (5), 546-553.
6. Fenton, L., White, C., Gallant, K., et al. (2016) The benefits of recreation for the recovery and social inclusion of individuals with mental illness: an integrative review. Leisure Sciences, 38 (5).
7. Markula, P., &, Silk, M., (2011) Qualitative Research for Physical Culture. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Denzin, N. K., &, Lincoln, Y. S., (eds) (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
9. Letts, L., Wilkins, S., Law, M., Stewart, D., Bosch, J., &, Westmorland, M., (2007) Guidelines for Critical Review Form: Qualitative Studies (Version 2.0).
10. Lauckner, H., Paterson, M., &, Krupa, T., (2012) Using constructivist case study methodology to understand community development processes: proposed methodological questions to guide the research process. The Qualitative Report, 17 (13), 1-22.
11. King, M., Nazareth, I., Lampe, F., et al. (2005) Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants' and professionals' preferences in randomised controlled trials: National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment.
12. Hsieh, H. F., &, Shannon, S. E., (2005) Three approaches to qualitative analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277-1288.
13. Tabachnick, B. G., &, Fidell, L. S., (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th edn. Boston: Allan and Bacon.
14. Kelloway, K. E., (1998) Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher's Guide. London: Sage Publications.
15. Altman, D., (1991) Randomisation. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 302, 1481-1482.